Balancing clean water-climate change mitigation...
Transcript of Balancing clean water-climate change mitigation...
Balancing clean water-climate change mitigation trade-offs
Simon Parkinsona,b,∗, Volker Kreya,c, Daniel Huppmanna, Taher Kahila, David McColluma,d, OliverFrickoa, Edward Byersa, Matthew Giddena, Beatriz Mayora, Zarrar Khana,e, Catherine Raptisf,
Narasimha D. Raoa, Nils Johnsona, Yoshihide Wadaa,g, Ned Djilalib, Keywan Riahia,h,i
aInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, AustriabUniversity of Victoria, PO Box 3055 STN CSC, V8W 3P6 Victoria BC, Canada
cNorwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491, Trondheim, NorwaydUniversity of Tennessee,1640 Cumberland Avenue, 37996-3340 Knoxville TN, United States
eUniversidad Pontificia Comillas, Calle de Santa Cruz de Marcenado 26, 28015 Madrid, SpainfETH Zurich, John-von-Neumann-Weg 9, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
gUtrecht University, PO Box 80.115, 3508 Utrecht, The NetherlandshTU Graz, Inffeldgasse 21, 8010 Graz, Austria
iColorado School of Mines, 1500 Illinois Street, Golden, CO 80401, United States
Abstract
Energy systems support technical solutions fulfilling the United Nations’ Sustainable Development1
Goal for clean water and sanitation (SDG6), with implications for future energy demands and greenhouse2
gas emissions. The energy sector is also a large consumer of water, making water efficiency targets in-3
grained in SDG6 important constraints for long-term energy planning. Here, we apply a global integrated4
assessment model to quantify the cost and characteristics of infrastructure pathways balancing SDG6 tar-5
gets for water access, scarcity, treatment and efficiency with long-term energy transformations limiting6
climate warming to 1.5 ◦C. Under a mid-range human development scenario, we find that approximately7
1 trillion USD2010 per year is required to close water infrastructure gaps and operate water systems con-8
sistent with achieving SDG6 goals by 2030. Adding a 1.5 ◦C climate policy constraint increases these9
costs by up to 8 %. In the reverse direction, when the SDG6 targets are added on top of the 1.5 ◦C policy10
constraint, the cost to transform and operate energy systems increases 2 to 9 % relative to a baseline11
1.5 ◦C scenario that does not achieve the SDG6 targets by 2030. Cost increases in the SDG6 pathways12
are due to expanded use of energy-intensive water treatment and costs associated with water conserva-13
tion measures in power generation, municipal, manufacturing and agricultural sectors. Combined global14
spending (capital and operational expenditures) in the integrated SDG6-1.5 ◦C scenarios to 2030 on wa-15
ter and energy systems increases 92 to 125 % relative to a baseline scenario without 1.5 ◦C and SDG616
constraints. Evaluation of the multi-sectoral policies underscores the importance of water conservation17
and integrated water-energy planning for avoiding costs from interacting water, energy and climate goals.18
∗Corresponding author. Email address: [email protected]
Preprint submitted to Environmental Research Letters November 8, 2018
Page 1 of 22 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
1. Introduction19
Achieving the objectives outlined in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is20
estimated to require annual incremental spending of 1.5 to 2.5 % of global GDP [1]. For policy-makers,21
the technologies and processes supplying energy and water services are of concern because the SDGs22
target clean water and energy for all, while 2.1 billion people still lack access to an improved water23
source and 1.1 billion lack access to electricity [2, 3]. Moreover, achieving the other SDGs, such as those24
related to health, ecosystems, and poverty, will be contingent on meeting water and energy sustainability25
objectives [4, 5]. At the same time, water and energy systems are closely interlinked: water plays a key26
role in all stages of energy supply (e.g., fuel processing and power plant operations) [6], and conversely27
a significant amount of energy is required to pump and treat water resources [7]. Identifying long-term28
infrastructure strategies that effectively balance water, energy and human development objectives in an29
integrated manner can assist in achieving the SDGs [8, 9].30
Concurrent to the SDG agenda is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC)31
landmark Paris Agreement, which has the overarching objective of limiting 21st century global mean32
temperature change from pre-industrial levels to well below 2 ◦C while pursuing efforts to limit the tem-33
perature increase to 1.5 ◦C. Climate action is included as an SDG (SDG13), and avoiding climate change34
impacts is consistent with a number of the other SDGs [10]. However, there exist potential trade-offs35
between deployment of certain climate change mitigation measures and solutions consistent with the36
SDG6 (clean water and sanitation) agenda. Specifically, wastewater treatment capacity will need to ex-37
pand rapidly in many developing regions in order to provide coverage aligned with the SDG6 targets, and38
the associated energy footprint could place strain on regional energy systems and climate change miti-39
gation plans [11]. Moreover, the SDG6 water scarcity and efficiency targets can create incentive to use40
energy-intensive wastewater recycling and desalination technologies as solutions to reduce withdrawals41
from conventional surface and groundwater resources [12]. At the same time implementation of bioen-42
ergy, concentrating solar, nuclear or carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies as climate change43
mitigation solutions may lead to increased water use if the processes are not designed for water efficiency44
[13–15].45
Despite widespread water-energy linkages and a breadth of knowledge on how to achieve the climate46
and clean water targets in isolation, there is a lack of global-scale multi-sectoral analysis quantifying the47
relative impacts of achieving SDG6 targets on the cost and characteristics of energy pathways consistent48
with the Paris Agreement [16]. Previous work provides important context but focused mainly on water-49
2
Page 2 of 22AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
constrained national energy or land-use strategies [13, 17–19]. Previous analysis of global and regional50
development pathways incorporating multiple sustainability perspectives did not assess water access and51
treatment costs or interactions between SDG6 and climate change mitigation policies [6, 20–25]. The52
lack of consistent policy treatment across water and energy systems at the global-scale limits our under-53
standing of the investments needed to achieve the SDGs.54
Here, we assess integrated water-energy systems transformation to begin to unravel the costs and55
characteristics of global pathways consistent with both the Paris Agreement and SDG6 objectives. The56
MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM integrated assessment model (IAM), used previously to develop globally com-57
prehensive energy pathways consistent with deep decarbonization [26], is enhanced in this work to in-58
clude a reduced-form, regionally-specific representation of the global water sector. The new approach59
represents an improvement in IAM analysis because it accounts for future shifts in global water use60
patterns driven by a combination of socioeconomic changes and SDGs, and links these projections and61
policies to water availability, and the cost, energy and emissions impacts of future infrastructure systems.62
The coupling of water and energy policy modeling at the global-scale supports prospective analysis of63
the investment burden from multiple targets occurring over different sectors, timeframes and geographic64
scales. The results highlight the important role of IAMs in finding low-cost global pathways consistent65
with multiple SDG objectives.66
2. Methods67
The technical implementation of the IAM and the water sector enhancements is detailed in the Supple-68
mentary Information (sections S1.1 to S1.3), with salient features of the methods used to evaluate multi-69
sectoral water and climate polices summarized here. The scenario for population, economic growth and70
other key drivers is constructed from an existing IAM representation of the middle-of-the-road Shared71
Socioeconomic Pathway (i.e., SSP2) [26–28]. The Paris Agreement and SDG6 policies are included in72
the IAM as additional constraints, and force the IAM to identify feasible least-cost implementation sce-73
narios for the 21st century in 11 geographic regions. The countries included in each region are listed in74
the Supplementary Information (Table S1 and Figure S1).75
The 1.5 ◦C climate policy is implemented as a constraint on cumulative emissions over the 21st76
century across energy and land systems. Consistent emission budgets and pathways are derived from77
previous climate model simulations [26]. Figure 1 outlines the water-related constraints used to repre-78
sent the SDG6 policies. The analysis does not cover all of the targets associated with SDG6, including79
3
Page 3 of 22 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
those for flood management and transboundary cooperation. Two unique pathways consistent with the80
SDG6 narrative bridge uncertainties driven by future end-use behavior and technological development. A81
supply-oriented pathway (SDG6-Supply) combines the SDG6 policy implementation with business-as-82
usual (baseline) water use projections. The scenario primarily features expansion of supply-side technolo-83
gies in response to mitigating future demand growth. An efficiency-oriented pathway (SDG6-Efficiency)84
features a transition towards a future where significant progress is made on the demand-side in terms of85
reaching sustainable water consumption behaviour across all sectors. A key feature is the inclusion of86
irrigation conservation as an approach to meet water targets through re-allocation of saved water to other87
sectors.88
Constraint
category
Water Sector Development Scenario
Baseline SDG6-Supply SDG6-Efficiency
Water
infrastructure
access
1. Piped water and treatment
access proceeds according
to the baseline SSP2
socioeconomic projections
1. SDG 6.1/6.2 By 2030 100% municipal
withdrawals from piped water infrastructure
2. SDG 6.2 By 2030 100% municipal return flows
collected
3. SDG 6.3/6.6 By 2030 50% of return flows treated
1. SDG 6.1/6.2 By 2030 100% municipal
withdrawals from piped water infrastructure
2. SDG 6.2 By 2030 100% municipal return flows
collected
3. SDG 6.3/6.6 By 2030 50% of return flows treated
Water demand
1. Baseline SSP2 per capita
water withdrawals and return
flows
1. Baseline SSP2 per capita water withdrawals and
return flows
2. SDG 6.1 By 2030 Urban domestic withdrawals
exceed 100 liters per day and rural domestic
withdrawals exceed 50 liters per day
1. SDG 6.4/6.6 Baseline SSP2 per capita water
withdrawals and return flows + 10% end-use
efficiency improvement due to behavior change
2. SDG 6.1 By 2030 urban domestic withdrawals
exceed 100 liters per day and rural domestic
withdrawals exceed 50 liters per day
Water allocation1. No change to allocation
schemes
1. SDG 6.4/6.6 By 2030 20 % less withdrawals from
rivers and aquifers relative to 2010
2. SDG 6.4/6.6 By 2030 minimum 5% reduction in
energy sector water consumption relative to BAU
1. SDG 6.4/6.6 Up to 30% of irrigation withdrawals
can be efficiently re-allocated to other sectors.
2. SDG 6.4/6.6 By 2030 30 % less withdrawals from
rivers and aquifers relative to 2010
3. SDG 6.4/6.6 By 2030 minimum 10% reduction in
energy sector water consumption relative to BAU
Water technology
development
1. Expansion of advanced
recycling and desalination in
water stressed regions at
historical rates
2. Phase out of freshwater
once-through systems
3. Energy intensive water
supply technologies
1. Energy intensive water supply technologies
2. SDG 6.4 Rapid expansion of desalination and
wastewater recycling in water stressed regions
3. SDG 6.4/6.6 No once-through power plant
cooling systems (freshwater or seawater)
1. Energy efficient water supply technologies
2. SDG 6.4 Rapid expansion of desalination and
wastewater recycling in water stressed regions
3. SDG 6.4/6.6 Increased end-use recycling by
2030 (10% reduction in consumption).
4. SDG 6.4/6.6 No once-through power plant
cooling systems (freshwater or seawater)
Figure 1: The water sector development scenarios and parameterized water constraints for the analysis. Constraints specific toSDG6 are indicated in bold.
The SDG6 water access and quality targets (6.1-6.3) are integrated into the IAM by constraining the89
required capacity of water infrastructure systems. The SDG6 pathways feature a transition in 2030 to90
universal piped water access and wastewater collection and towards wastewater treatment capacity able91
to treat a minimum of half all return flows. Increasing the fraction of wastewater that is treated also92
protects water-related ecosystems and is consistent with SDG6 target 6.6. Access rates are projected in93
the baseline scenario by combining the SSP2 income projections with a logistics model fit to historical94
4
Page 4 of 22AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
national-data (Supplementary Information, Figure S6) [29, 30].95
It is important to emphasize the parameterized constraints represent our interpretation of the SDG696
targets, and that the interpretaton could be implemented differently by other analysts. Representing the97
diversity of possible outcomes remains a common challenge for global IAMs, and future research might98
address the uncertainty by eliciting and analyzing additional scenarios developed by multiple modeling99
teams (e.g., [31]).100
In total, 3.5 billion more people require access to piped water infrastructure and wastewater collection101
by 2030 and 1.8 billion more people require access to wastewater treatment under the SDG6 pathway rel-102
ative to the baseline scenario (Figure 2a). This outcome stems from the projected income-levels in 2030103
under the baseline SSP2 narrative, and the associated future water source and treatment access rates de-104
rived from the income-based logistics model (Supplementary Information, Figure S6). Namely, in many105
low-income regions the baseline SSP2 projections do not achieve levels of water access and treatment106
consistent with the SDG6 targets. Some regions (e.g., Indus Basin) face multiple challenges in meet-107
ing the SDG6 objectives because of extreme existing water stress combined with a wide infrastructure108
gap projected for 2030 (Figure 2c). It will be difficult for these regions to expand freshwater supply in109
the domestic sector without reducing demands elsewhere because of a lack of surface and groundwater110
resources.111
Consistent water withdrawal and return flow trajectories for the SSP2 scenario are generated to rep-112
resent demands in the irrigation, municipal (domestic) and manufacturing sectors (Supplementary Infor-113
mation, Section 1.3). To reflect transformation towards universal access to sufficient water for human114
development, municipal water withdrawals in all countries in the SDG6 pathways are adjusted such that115
all urban areas achieve per capita demands of at least 100 liters per day while rural areas achieve demands116
of at least 50 liters per day (Supplementary Information, Figure S7) [34–36]. Costs for water distribution117
and wastewater collection in the municipal and manufacturing sectors are estimated based on average118
cost data compiled by the World Health Organization [37], combined with the modeled withdrawal and119
return-flow volumes (Supplementary Information, Section S1.3). This approach aligns closely with pre-120
vious work that quantified costs to achieve universal access to clean water and sanitation [37–39], but121
also smooths out some of the known cost variability for distribution systems under diverse topographic122
conditions [40], and thus results do not provide detailed cost-level information at the municipal- or city-123
scale.124
Expansion pathways for advanced water treatment (i.e., wastewater recycling and desalination) are125
5
Page 5 of 22 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
India
China
Nigeria
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Ethiopia
Pakistan
Viet Nam
Uganda
Tanzania
Kenya
Philippines
D.R. Congo
Sudan
Brazil
Egypt
Nepal
Thailand
Myanmar
Yemen
Country
Ganges Delta & Plain
Lower & Middle Indus
Northern Deccan Plateau
Southern Deccan Plateau
Lower Yangtze
Namuda − Tapi
Southeastern Ghats
Western Ghats
Lower Huang He
Nile Delta
Southwestern Arabian Coast
Lower Tigris & Euphrates
Indus Himalayan Foothills
Lower Nile
Ganges Himalayan Foothills
Upper Amu Darya
Upper Tigris & Euphrates
Zambezian Lowveld
Northern Central Asian Highlands
Kura − South Caspian Drainages
Water−stressed ecoregionLowStress
MediumStress
HighStress
Piped Freshwater & Wastewater Collection
−100 0 100
Wastewater Treatment
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Difference in number of people with improved access topiped freshwater and wastewater collection by 2030SDG6 pathway relative to the baseline scenarioDifference in number of people with improved access by 2030
SDG6 pathway relative to the baseline scenario
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
106 107 108 109 106 107 108 109
a b c
Figure 2: Comparison between projected piped water access and wastewater treatment rates under the SDG6 and baselinewater policy scenarios a. Spatially-explicit (7.5 arc-minutes) differences between projected piped water access and watertreatment levels in the SDG6 scenario relative to the baseline scenario; b. differences in population with piped water accessand wastewater collection aggregated by country [32]; and c. differences categorized by the water-stressed ecological regionsdefined in Hoekstra et al. (2010) [33] (Supplementary Information, Figure S5).
incorporated into the water sector transformations to supply increasing future urban withdrawals in water126
stressed regions [12, 41, 42], which is in line with SDG6 target 6.4 (substantially reduce the number of127
people suffering from water scarcity). Diffusion is limited based on two criteria: i) the historical 5-year128
maximum regional growth rate calculated using an asset-level global desalination database [41]; and ii) a129
logistics model that limits expansion in low-income regions (Supplementary Information, Section S1.3).130
Wastewater recycling is prioritized over seawater desalination to reflect additional environmental chal-131
lenges typically associated with desalination (e.g., brine production, marine thermal pollution, etc.). A132
maximum recycling rate of 80 % of the urban return flow is assumed to reflect difficulties in capturing133
and recycling all wastewater to potable standards [43]. Wastewater recycling can also take various forms,134
including direct application of domestic wastewater for uses that do not require potable quality [43]. To135
assess impacts on the results we incorporate a transition towards low-cost, energy-efficient recycling sys-136
tems in the SDG6-Efficiency scenario using performance data identified in the literature (Supplementary137
Information, Table S3) [44, 45].138
We define conservation cost curves for additional end-use water conservation measures in the munic-139
ipal, manufacturing and agricultural sectors. Significant diversity in conservation measures exists across140
6
Page 6 of 22AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
regions, and a full assessment of the opportunities and implementation costs is beyond the scope of this141
paper. We alternatively applied a stylized approach to include expected conservation costs and impacts142
at the regional-scale. Previous work quantified the impact of various conservation options and associated143
implementation costs, and generally show that conservation costs increase non-linearly and offset a lim-144
ited fraction of water demand [46–49]. We assume a general form for the conservation curve that enables145
consistent linearization across regions (Supplementary Information, Figure S8). A maximum conser-146
vation potential in each sector representing 30 % of the baseline withdrawals is assumed in this paper,147
and is a somewhat conservative interpretation of previous assessments that focus specifically on water148
conservation potentials for specific sectors [46, 47, 49, 50]. We use 0.3 USD1 per m3 to represent the149
average cost for conservation measures because this approximates the point at which it can be expected150
that investment switches to expanding yield from conventional raw surface and groundwater sources [51].151
Water efficiency measures aligned with SDG6 target 6.4 are also embedded into the SDG6 energy152
transformation pathways. Energy sector water consumption post-2030 is limited to a fixed percentage153
of the estimated freshwater consumption in the baseline scenario without climate policy (5 % less in the154
SDG6-Supply scenario and 10 % less in the SDG6-Efficiency scenario). This pushes the energy sector155
in each region to improve water consumption intensity through transformational changes in the energy156
supply-chain. Furthermore, once-through cooling systems are phased-out completely in the SDG6 sce-157
narios to avoid thermal water pollution [52], helping to protect water-related ecosystems in line with158
SDG6 target 6.6. The baseline scenario also maintains trends away from freshwater once-though systems159
and towards recirculating (closed-loop) systems [53, 54], but does not feature a specific consumption160
reduction target or constraints on seawater once-through systems. The manufacturing sector is also as-161
sumed to implement water conservation measures more aggressively in the SDG6-Efficiency pathways,162
achieving lower average national water intensities than in the SDG6-Supply pathways. The withdrawal163
and return flow trajectories for each region including the impacts of conservation are presented in the164
Supplementary Information (Figures S8-S12).165
3. Results166
3.1. Integrated solution pathways167
Select global indicator pathways calculated with the enhanced IAM under the water and climate policy168
scenarios are depicted in Figure 3. In both SDG6 scenarios, global freshwater withdrawals from rivers169
1All costs are reported in 2010 US Dollars (USD2010) to ensure consistency of the input data sources.
7
Page 7 of 22 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
and aquifers and untreated return flows decrease relative to the estimated 2010 volumes (Figure 3a). In170
the SDG6-Efficiency scenario, 26 % less freshwater is withdrawn from rivers and aquifers and 43 %171
less wastewater is returned to the environment untreated by 2030 relative to volumes estimated for 2010.172
These savings could improve environmental flows while reducing water pollution.173
To avoid freshwater withdrawals from conventional surface and groundwater resources while increas-174
ing the fraction of wastewater that is treated, an upscaling of efficiency, alternative freshwater sources175
and wastewater treatment capacity is required. In the SDG6-Supply scenario, global desalination capac-176
ity increases from 24 km3 in 2010 to 250 km3 in 2070. At the same time, advanced wastewater recycling177
capacity expands from an estimated 16 km3 in 2010 to 720 km3 in 2070. The expansion occurs mainly178
in the Middle East / North Africa and South Asia regions (Supplementary Information, Figure S18-S19)179
where extreme water stress is combined with rapidly growing urban populations. Global water sector180
electricity consumption (Figure 3d) increases from 820 TWh per year in 2010 (4 % of global demand) to181
more than 2000 TWh per year by 2070 (3 to 6 % of global demand), reflecting growing water consump-182
tion and the expanded use of advanced water treatment. In contrast, electricity consumption for water183
supply decreases in the SDG6-Efficiency scenario due to lower water demands and higher energy effi-184
ciencies assumed for the water technologies. Water efficiency investments reduce withdrawals across all185
sectors by approximately 30 %, resulting in reduced expansion of advanced water treatment (desalination186
capacity reaches 70 km3 in 2070 while recycling reaches 190 km3 ).187
Global carbon emissions in 2030 (Figure 3c) do not vary significantly across scenarios (<2 %) in-188
dicating minimal interactions between the emission pathway and the ramp-up in energy-intensive water189
infrastructure systems to meet the SDG timeline. Emissions in the 1.5 ◦C scenarios reduce rapidly and are190
negative in 2070 due to a combination of land-based mitigation measures and carbon capture technolo-191
gies. Global energy sector water consumption (Figure 3e) is at the same time increasing in all scenarios.192
Post-2030 the baseline 1.5 ◦C energy transformation pathway requires more water than when no cli-193
mate policy is included for two reasons: 1) there are higher electricity demands from increasing end-use194
electrification; and 2) certain low-carbon power generation options (e.g., nuclear) have a larger water195
footprint than conventional combined-cycle natural gas systems prevalent in transformations under no196
climate policy [6]. The SDG6 scenarios feature additional water efficiency targets that achieve net reduc-197
tions compared to estimated 2010 levels (5 % in SDG6-Supply and 10 % in SDG6-Efficiency), but the198
conserved water volumes are negligible when considered in the broader context of the regional volumes199
supporting irrigation, municipal and industrial sectors (Figure 3a).200
8
Page 8 of 22AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
2030 2050 2070
a. Freshwater Withdrawal (rivers + aquifers)
Year
thou
sand
km
3 of f
resh
wat
er p
er y
ear
01
23
4
2030 2050 2070
b. Untreated Return−flow (domestic + industry)
Year
thou
sand
km
3 of w
aste
wat
er p
er y
ear
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
2030 2050 2070
c. Total Carbon Emissions (energy + land)
Year b
illio
n to
ns o
f car
bon
per
year
05
1015
2025
2030 2050 2070
d. Water Sector Electricity Consumption
Year
terr
awat
t hou
rs o
f ele
ctric
ity p
er y
ear
050
010
0015
0020
0025
00
2030 2050 2070
e. Energy Sector Freshwater Consumption
Year
thou
sand
km
3 of f
resh
wat
er p
er y
ear
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
2030 2050 2070
f. Undiscounted Cost (energy + water)
Year
trill
ion
US
D20
10 p
er y
ear
02
46
810
1214
Infrastructure Transformation Pathway
Baseline1.5C
SDG6−SupplySDG6−Supply−1.5C
SDG6−EfficiencySDG6−Efficiency−1.5C Estimated for 2010
Figure 3: Impacts of combined water and climate policies on select global indicator pathways (2010 to 2070): a. Freshwaterwithdrawals from rivers and aquifers across irrigation, municipal and industrial sectors; b. Untreated return-flows from themunicipal and industrial sectors; c. Total carbon emissions across energy and land systems; d. Water sector energy consump-tion (electricity); e. Energy sector water consumption (excluding hydropower); and f. Undiscounted costs calculated acrosswater and energy systems (sum of the investment, fixed and variable cost components).
9
Page 9 of 22 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
3.2. Impact on system costs201
The undiscounted total costs representing the sum of the investment (capital) and operational expendi-202
tures for water and energy systems (Figure 3f) indicate in order to achieve the clean water targets by 2030203
while placing infrastructure on a path consistent with 1.5 ◦C that annual spending needs to be increased204
92 to 125 % relative to the baseline scenario. Comparing results across scenarios further indicates that205
to 2030, similar effort is needed to move towards pathways consistent with SDG6 as with 1.5 ◦C, but206
that in the long-term, spending to achieve 1.5 ◦C dominate. Regional cost results interpreted on a per207
capita basis (Table 1) are 100 to 300 USD per year. Per capita costs are largest in high-income economies208
because these regions consume most on a per capita basis. Regional results further demonstrate that209
the costs associated with achieving both climate and clean water targets range between 0.8 and 2.5 %210
of regional GDP, with higher fractions occurring in developing regions. The sustainable consumption211
narrative embedded in the SDG6-Efficiency scenario results in the long-term costs decreasing relative to212
the other scenarios tested (Figure 3f), and this is due to avoided spending on supply infrastructure. It is213
important to emphasize that broader impacts of the SDG6-Efficiency narrative on e.g., production costs214
in the agriculture and manufacturing sectors are not accounted for in the presented cost estimates, which215
would impact the anticipated benefits of water conservation.216
Region Total cost [ billion USD2010 per year ] Cost per capita [ USD2010 per year ] Percent GDP [ % ]Baseline SDG6-1.5C-S SDG6-1.5C-E Baseline SDG6-1.5C-S SDG6-1.5C-E Baseline SDG6-1.5C-S SDG6-1.5C-E
Asia 450 660 650 110 160 150 0.9 1.4 1.4LAM 80 170 130 120 250 200 0.8 1.7 1.3Africa+ 180 270 220 110 160 130 1.6 2.5 2.0OECD+ 290 460 380 200 310 260 0.6 1.0 0.8
Table 1: Regional costs (investment plus operational) for the baseline and integrated policy scenarios. SDG6-1.5C-S representsthe scenario combining the SDG6-Supply policies with the 1.5 ◦C emissions constraint. SDG6-1.5C-E represents the scenariocombining the SDG6-Efficiency policies with the 1.5 ◦C emissions constraint. The presented indicators are computed as annualaverages over the 2020 and 2030 model decision-making periods. Africa+ includes the countries within Sub-Saharan Africa,the Middle East and North Africa. OECD+ includes countries in North America and Western Europe, as well as countriesin Eastern Europe and including Russia. LAM includes countries in Latin America. A full list of the countries considered ineach region is provided in the Supplementary Information (Table S1).
Analysis of the investment portfolios (expenditures on new infrastructure capacity) by 2030 indicates217
re-allocation of financing away from fossil fuels and conventional freshwater supply systems combined218
with a massive ramp-up in investment in efficiency and clean supply projects across water and energy219
systems supports the multi-sectoral policy objectives (Figure 4). In SDG6-1.5C scenarios, by 2030 on220
average more than 170 billion USD per year is disinvested in fossil fuel activities relative to the baseline221
scenario and used to partially fund the 910 billion USD per year in increased spending on efficiency and222
10
Page 10 of 22AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
low-carbon resources. Compared to the 1.5 ◦C scenario without SDG6 targets, there is increased use of223
wind and solar to reduce the capacity of thermal power generation and associated water requirements224
(Supplementary Information, Figure S20 and S21). In the water sector, average investments into con-225
ventional surface and groundwater systems including large-scale dams is reduced by 60 billion USD per226
year relative to the baseline scenario. At the same time incremental investment into piped water access227
and water treatment reaches 260 billion USD per year, closing the infrastructure gaps projected under228
baseline conditions (Figure 2).229
Baseline 1.5C SDG6 SDG6−1.5C
a. Investment by 2030
Scenario
trill
ion
US
D20
10 p
er y
ear
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
b. Investment Change by 2030
trillion USD2010 per year
−0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Energy Efficiency
Renewables
Nuclear / CCS
Storage / Distribution
Fossil Energy
Powerplant Cooling
Water Efficiency
Water Treatment
Water Distribution
River / Aquifer Diversion
Dam Storage
Disinvestment Investment
SDG6−1.5Crelative toBaseline
Figure 4: Global investment and investment change portfolios for achieving the SDG6 policies by 2030 while placing energysystems on a path consistent with 1.5 ◦C. Depicted costs for scenarios including SDG6 are averages across SDG6-Supplyand SDG6-Efficiency. Dam storage represents large-scale reservoir systems used for surface water storage. River / aquiferdiversion represents extractions of freshwater from surface and groundwater resources. Water distribution includes pipedwater supply and wastewater collection. Water treatment includes both conventional and advanced (recyling and desalination)technologies. Water efficiency measures cover irrigation, urban, rural and manufacturing sectors. Power plant cooling includesonce-through (fresh and ocean water), closed-loop and air cooling technologies. Fossil energy represents all technologies thatextract and convert fossil energy resources. Storage / Distribution technologies include energy grids and liquid fuel storage.Renewables includes wind, solar, geothermal and bioenergy technologies. Energy efficiency measures cover the industrial,building and transport sectors.
Incremental water sector investment needs and are found to be greatest in Asia and Africa (Figure230
5a) because these regions face a combination of rapidly growing demands and existing water stress in231
certain basins. Relatively little incremental water sector investment needs are projected for developed232
economies (North America and Europe) because these countries already have high access and treatment233
rates exceeding the SDG6 targets. Incremental investments in these regions are supporting efficiency and234
11
Page 11 of 22 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
advanced water treatment, which are helping to reduce projected withdrawals from rivers and aquifers in235
water stressed regions. Incremental energy investment needs to achieve 1.5 ◦C exceed water investment236
needs for the SDG6 targets in each of the aggregated macro-regions, but these trends may differ when237
assessed at higher spatial resolutions.238
A comprehensive analysis of the energy investments to achieve the Paris Agreement and associated239
uncertainties are detailed in McCollum et al. (2018) [55]. In this paper, we find that energy sector in-240
vestments in 2030 increase by an estimated 35 billion USD per year when the SDG6 policies are added241
on top of the 1.5 ◦C climate policy (Figure 5b). The incremental investments are supporting increased242
electricity generation capacity needed to supply water sector demands and for implementation of water-243
efficient power plant cooling technologies. Conversely, investments supporting the SDG6 policies display244
much less sensitivity when the 1.5 ◦C climate policy is added (Figure 5b) because the SDG6 policies are245
constraining water infrastructure coverage and thus driving the observed investment levels across scenar-246
ios. Disinvestments in the water sector found when comparing the SDG6 scenarios with and without the247
1.5 ◦C target (Figure 5b) are attributed to reduced capacity of river/aquifer diversions and dam storage248
upstream from the energy sector. Specifically, when the 1.5 ◦C target is added, the energy system must249
transform rapidly, and to avoid exceeding the embedded water efficiency targets later in the time horizon250
and the prospect of stranded assets, the integrated SDG6-1.5C pathways feature accelerated transforma-251
tion towards water-efficient energy technologies, and this results in lower energy sector water withdrawals252
in the near term and the avoided water sector investment costs observed in Figure 5b.253
Despite limited impacts to water sector investments, the increasing energy supply costs under a 1.5254
◦C policy are translated to water infrastructure systems according to their energy consumption intensity,255
which is increasing in the SDG6 pathways in many regions due to expanded water treatment. Figure 6a256
depicts estimated future operational electricity costs in the water sector across scenarios, and indicates257
that combining the 1.5 ◦C policy with the SDG6-Supply scenario results in annual spending on electricity258
reaching 110 billion USD in 2030 and growing further to 160 billion USD in 2070. Conversely, spending259
on electricity in the water sector remains relatively steady in the SDG6-Efficiency scenario, reaching a260
much lower global expenditure of 110 billion USD per year by 2070. We find a similar scale of spending261
(investment and operational costs) will be needed to simultaneously transition power systems towards262
more water efficient cooling technologies (Figure 5b), which are more expensive and less energy-efficient263
than conventional options and becoming increasingly expensive to operate under decarbonization.264
12
Page 12 of 22AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Africa+ Asia LAM OECD+
a. Incremental Investment by 2030bi
llion
US
D20
10 p
er y
ear
050
100
150
200
250 Energy: SDG6−1.5C relative to Baseline
Water: SDG6−1.5C relative to Baseline
b. Incremental Investment by 2030
billi
on U
SD
2010
per
yea
r
−10
−5
05
1015
2025
−10
−5
05
1015
2025
Africa+Asia
LAM OECD+
Energy: SDG6−1.5C relative to 1.5C
Water: SDG6−1.5C relative to SDG6
Figure 5: Incremental water and energy investment costs by 2030 across global regions: a. SDG6-1.5C relative to Baseline;and b. SDG6-1.5C relative to 1.5C for energy investments and SDG6-1.5C relative to SDG6 for water investments. Depictedcosts for scenarios including SDG6 are averages across SDG6-Supply and SDG6-Efficiency. Africa+ includes the countrieswithin Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa.OECD+ includes countries in North America and WesternEurope, as well as countries in Eastern Europe and including Russia. LAM includes countries in Latin America. A full list ofthe countries considered in each region is provided in the Supplementary Information (Table S1).
4. Discussion265
The results demonstrate that balancing trade-offs between climate change mitigation and clean water266
policies requires a global shift in investment and operational decision-making across sectors that is best267
delivered through targeted policies developed from an integrated water-energy perspective. We find that268
implementation of the SDG6 targets for water access and wastewater treatment cause relatively minor im-269
pacts to the energy sector when compared to the effort needed for climate change mitigation. Conversely,270
water efficiency targets aligned with SDG6 applied to the energy sector cause changes to the long-term271
energy technology strategy used to mitigate climate change. Specifically, there is increased exploitation272
of wind and solar technologies as well as use of air cooling systems in the near-term to simultaneously273
reduce carbon and water intensity of electricity.274
Our results further demonstrate that climate change mitigation can increase operational costs for water275
supply systems. Cost increases might be passed on to consumers based on future water pricing schemes or276
through taxes supporting government subsidies that often protect consumers from abrubt price changes277
reflecting the full cost of water infrastructure. Thus, targeted climate policies could include subsidies278
designed to protect vulnerable populations in water stressed regions, where there is the greatest risk279
13
Page 13 of 22 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
2010 2030 2050 2070
050
100
150
200
250
a. Water Sector Electricity Costs
Year
bill
ion
US
D20
10 p
er y
ear
2010 2030 2050 2070
050
100
150
200
250
b. Power Sector Cooling Costs
Year
bill
ion
US
D20
10 p
er y
ear
Infrastructure Transformation Pathway
Baseline
1.5C
SDG6−Supply
SDG6−Supply−1.5C
SDG6−Efficiency
SDG6−Efficiency−1.5C
Figure 6: Global cost impacts of the combined SDG6 and 1.5 ◦C policies from water-energy interactions: a. water sectorelectricity costs; and b. power sector cooling costs.
14
Page 14 of 22AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
for climate change mitigation to impact water-related costs due to a limited range of energy-intensive280
freshwater supply options. Major cost uncertainties relate to the scale of future water demand growth281
in water stressed regions and how re-allocation across sectors can address supply expansion. We find282
that a transition to achievable water consumption intensities combined with re-allocation of water across283
sectors (e.g., from irrigation to urban areas) can largely offset trade-offs between the investigated SDG6284
targets and climate policy objectives.285
Finding and improving synergies between decarbonization and water efficiency is therefore paramount286
for minimizing joint policy implementation costs and uncertainties. For example, many processes within287
the water sector are candidates for recruitment in electricity sector demand response programs or for inte-288
gration with combined heat and power management [56, 57]. Leveraging these integrated solutions will289
be important for increasing efficiency and the penetration of renewable generation sources. Moreover,290
continuing innovation with emerging wastewater treatment processes could lead to significant reductions291
in energy intensity [58]. In the near term, water and energy resource planners should promote integrated292
valuation of efficiency measures and supply-side projects to ensure system development aligns with sus-293
tainability goals [48].294
The analysis did not consider impacts of interbasin transfers, future flood management, transboundary295
agreements, fertilizer application or livestock waste management practices in response to water targets,296
which would present further constraints to the development pathways. More spatial detail is also needed297
to unravel within-basin impacts of upstream conservation on downstream water availability. Finally the298
analysis in this paper does not cast a wide enough net to capture the expected benefits of climate change299
mitigation in terms of the avoided impacts on water resources and consequently the performance of energy300
technologies that rely on water availability. Significant geographic diversity is anticipated, and impacts301
may be partially mitigated when aggregated across regions and globally [59, 60]. Nonetheless, avoiding302
adaptation costs in the 1.5 ◦C scenarios is expected to improve synergies with the SDG6 targets in many303
regions.304
Despite these limitations, to our knowledge, this paper is the first to provide harmonized global path-305
ways for water and energy infrastructure that align with elements of SDG6 and a 1.5 ◦C climate target.306
Future research might address additional SDG6-climate change mitigation challenges identified above by307
zooming into local areas to assess the multi-sector costs and benefits of policy integration [61]. In this308
context, it is critical to incorporate clean water-climate change mitigation interactions with other SDGs,309
particularly those with strong interdependencies, such as the SDGs involving targets for poverty, food,310
15
Page 15 of 22 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
health and biodiversity.311
Acknowledgements312
The authors acknowledge the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for funding the development of313
this research as part of the Integrated Solutions for Water, Energy, and Land (ISWEL) project (GEF314
Contract Agreement: 6993), and the support of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization315
(UNIDO). The research has also been supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and316
Innovation Programme under grant agreement No 642147 (CD-LINKS), the University of Victoria, and317
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.318
References319
[1] G. Schmidt-Traub, A. Shah, Investment Needs to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals,320
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2015) 1–137.321
[2] ESMAP, Energy Sector Management Assistance Program, State of Electricity Access Report, World322
Bank, 2017.323
[3] JMP, Joint Monitoring Programme, Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017 update324
and Sustainable Development Goal baselines, World Health Organization (WHO) and the United325
Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF), 2017.326
[4] E. M. Biggs, E. Bruce, B. Boruff, J. M. Duncan, J. Horsley, N. Pauli, K. McNeill, A. Neef,327
F. Van Ogtrop, J. Curnow, et al., Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: A328
perspective on livelihoods, Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 389–397.329
[5] N. D. Rao, S. Pachauri, Energy access and living standards: Some observations on recent trends,330
Environmental Research Letters 12 (2) (2017) 025011.331
[6] O. Fricko, S. C. Parkinson, N. Johnson, M. Strubegger, M. T. van Vliet, K. Riahi, Energy sector332
water use implications of a 2 degree C? climate policy, Environmental Research Letters 11 (3)333
(2016) 034011.334
[7] A. Plappally, J. Lienhard, Energy requirements for water production, treatment, end use, reclama-335
tion, and disposal, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (7) (2012) 4818–4848.336
16
Page 16 of 22AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
[8] M. Howells, S. Hermann, M. Welsch, M. Bazilian, R. Segerstrom, T. Alfstad, D. Gielen, H. Rogner,337
G. Fischer, H. Van Velthuizen, et al., Integrated analysis of climate change, land-use, energy and338
water strategies, Nature Climate Change 3 (7) (2013) 621–626.339
[9] M. Nilsson, D. Griggs, M. Visbeck, Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals,340
Nature 534 (7607) (2016) 320–323.341
[10] C. Von Stechow, D. McCollum, K. Riahi, J. C. Minx, E. Kriegler, D. P. Van Vuuren, J. Jewell,342
C. Robledo-Abad, E. Hertwich, M. Tavoni, et al., Integrating global climate change mitigation goals343
with other sustainability objectives: A synthesis, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 40344
(2015) 363–394.345
[11] S. G. Rothausen, D. Conway, Greenhouse-gas emissions from energy use in the water sector, Nature346
Climate Change 1 (4) (2011) 210.347
[12] Y. Wada, T. Gleeson, L. Esnault, Wedge approach to water stress, Nature Geoscience 7 (9) (2014)348
615–617.349
[13] M. Webster, P. Donohoo, B. Palmintier, Water-CO2 trade-offs in electricity generation planning,350
Nature Climate Change 3 (12) (2013) 1029–1032.351
[14] M. Bonsch, F. Humpenoder, A. Popp, B. Bodirsky, J. P. Dietrich, S. Rolinski, A. Biewald, H. Lotze-352
Campen, I. Weindl, D. Gerten, et al., Trade-offs between land and water requirements for large-scale353
bioenergy production, GCB Bioenergy.354
[15] P. Brandl, S. M. Soltani, P. S. Fennell, N. Mac Dowell, Evaluation of cooling requirements of post-355
combustion CO2 capture applied to coal-fired power plants, Chemical Engineering Research and356
Design 122 (2017) 1–10.357
[16] D. L. McCollum, L. G. Echeverri, S. Busch, S. Pachauri, S. Parkinson, J. Rogelj, V. Krey, J. C.358
Minx, M. Nilsson, A.-S. Stevance, et al., Connecting the Sustainable Development Goals by their359
energy inter-linkages, Environmental Research Letters 13 (3) (2018) 033006.360
[17] A. Dubreuil, E. Assoumou, S. Bouckaert, S. Selosse, N. Maızi, Water modeling in an energy opti-361
mization framework–The water-scarce Middle East context, Applied Energy 101 (2013) 268–279.362
17
Page 17 of 22 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
[18] L. Gao, B. A. Bryan, Finding pathways to national-scale land-sector sustainability, Nature363
544 (7649) (2017) 217–222.364
[19] J. Jagermeyr, A. Pastor, H. Biemans, D. Gerten, Reconciling irrigated food production with environ-365
mental flows for Sustainable Development Goals implementation, Nature communications 8 (2017)366
15900.367
[20] K. Riahi, F. Dentener, D. Gielen, A. Grubler, J. Jewell, Z. Klimont, V. Krey, D. McCollum,368
S. Pachauri, S. Rao, B. van Ruijven, D. P. van Vuuren, C. Wilson, Chapter 17 - Energy Pathways369
for Sustainable Development, in: Global Energy Assessment - Toward a Sustainable Future, Cam-370
bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for371
Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 2012, pp. 1203–1306.372
URL www.globalenergyassessment.org373
[21] D. P. van Vuuren, M. Kok, P. L. Lucas, A. G. Prins, R. Alkemade, M. van den Berg, L. Bouw-374
man, S. van der Esch, M. Jeuken, T. Kram, et al., Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global375
sustainability objectives by 2050: Explorations using the IMAGE integrated assessment model,376
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 98 (2015) 303–323.377
[22] S. H. Kim, M. Hejazi, L. Liu, K. Calvin, L. Clarke, J. Edmonds, P. Kyle, P. Patel, M. Wise, E. Davies,378
Balancing global water availability and use at basin scale in an integrated assessment model, Cli-379
matic Change 136 (2) (2016) 217–231.380
[23] G. Iyer, K. Calvin, L. Clarke, J. Edmonds, N. Hultman, C. Hartin, H. McJeon, J. Aldy, W. Pizer, Im-381
plications of sustainable development considerations for comparability across nationally determined382
contributions, Nature Climate Change 8 (2) (2018) 124.383
[24] T. Kahil, S. Parkinson, Y. Satoh, P. Greve, P. Burek, T. I. Veldkamp, R. Burtscher, E. Byers, N. Dji-384
lali, G. Fischer, et al., A continental-scale hydro-economic model for integrating water-energy-land385
nexus solutions, Water Resources Research.386
[25] V. Nechifor, M. Winning, Global economic and food security impacts of demand-driven water387
scarcity: Alternative water management options for a thirsty world, Water 10 (10) (2018) 1442.388
[26] O. Fricko, P. Havlik, J. Rogelj, Z. Klimont, M. Gusti, N. Johnson, P. Kolp, M. Strubegger, H. Valin,389
18
Page 18 of 22AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
M. Amann, et al., The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-390
the-road scenario for the 21st century, Global Environmental Change 42 (2017) 251–267.391
[27] B. C. O’Neill, E. Kriegler, K. L. Ebi, E. Kemp-Benedict, K. Riahi, D. S. Rothman, B. J. van Ruijven,392
D. P. van Vuuren, J. Birkmann, K. Kok, et al., The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic393
pathways describing world futures in the 21st century, Global Environmental Change 42 (2017)394
169–180.395
[28] D. Huppmann, M. Gidden, O. Fricko, P. Kolp, C. Orthofer, M. Pimmer, A. Vinca, A. Mastrucci,396
K. Riahi, V. Krey, The MESSAGEix Integrated Assessment Model and the ix modeling platform397
(ixmp), Environmental Modelling & Software.398
[29] R. Baum, J. Luh, J. Bartram, Sanitation: A global estimate of sewerage connections without treat-399
ment and the resulting impact on MDG progress, Environmental Science & Technology 47 (4)400
(2013) 1994–2000.401
[30] R. Dellink, J. Chateau, E. Lanzi, B. Magne, Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared402
Socioeconomic Pathways, Global Environmental Change 42 (2017) 200–214.403
[31] Z. Vrontisi, G. Luderer, B. Saveyn, K. Keramidas, L. A. Reisa, L. Baumstark, C. Bertram, H. S.404
De Boer, L. Drouet, K. Fragkiadakis, et al., Enhancing global climate policy ambition towards a405
1.5c stabilization: a short-term multi-model assessment, Environmental Research Letters 13 (4)406
(2018) 044039.407
[32] GADM database of Global Administrative Areas, version 2.8 (2015).408
[33] J. M. Hoekstra, J. Molnar, M. Jennings, C. Revenga, M. Spalding, T. Boucher, J. Robertson,409
T. Heibel, K. Ellison, The Atlas of Global Conservation: Changes, Challenges, and Opportuni-410
ties to Make a Difference, University of California Press (2010) 1–272.411
[34] P. H. Gleick, Basic water requirements for human activities: Meeting basic needs, Water interna-412
tional 21 (2) (1996) 83–92.413
[35] L. Knight, The Right to Water, no. 3, World Health Organization, 2003.414
[36] A. Shaban, R. Sharma, Water consumption patterns in domestic households in major cities, Eco-415
nomic and Political Weekly (2007) 2190–2197.416
19
Page 19 of 22 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
[37] G. Hutton, J. Bartram, Regional and global costs of attaining the water supply and sanitation target417
(Target 10) of the Millennium Development Goals, Tech. rep., World Health Organization (2008).418
[38] G. Hutton, J. Bartram, Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements419
at the Global Level, World Health Organization (2004) 1–87.420
[39] G. Hutton, M. Varughese, The costs of meeting the 2030 sustainable development goal targets on421
drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene, Tech. rep., World Bank (2016).422
[40] O. Kavvada, K. L. Nelson, A. Horvath, Spatial optimization for decentralized non-potable water423
reuse, Environmental Research Letters 13 (6) (2018) 064001.424
[41] N. Hanasaki, S. Yoshikawa, K. Kakinuma, S. Kanae, A seawater desalination scheme for global425
hydrological models, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 20 (10) (2016) 4143.426
[42] U. Caldera, D. Bogdanov, C. Breyer, Local cost of seawater RO desalination based on solar PV and427
wind energy: A global estimate, Desalination 385 (2016) 207–216.428
[43] S. B. Grant, J.-D. Saphores, D. L. Feldman, A. J. Hamilton, T. D. Fletcher, P. L. Cook, M. Steward-429
son, B. F. Sanders, L. A. Levin, R. F. Ambrose, et al., Taking the waste out of wastewater for human430
water security and ecosystem sustainability, science 337 (6095) (2012) 681–686.431
[44] E. Gonzalez-Serrano, J. Rodriguez-Mirasol, T. Cordero, A. Koussis, J. Rodriguez, Cost of reclaimed432
municipal wastewater for applications in seasonally stressed semi-arid regions, Journal of water433
supply: research and technology-Aqua 54 (6) (2005) 355–369.434
[45] A. Kajenthira, A. Siddiqi, L. D. Anadon, A new case for promoting wastewater reuse in saudi435
arabia: Bringing energy into the water equation, Journal of environmental management 102 (2012)436
184–192.437
[46] P. H. Gleick, G. H. Wolff, K. K. Cushing, Waste not, want not: The potential for urban water438
conservation in California, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security439
Oakland, CA, 2003.440
[47] T. Dworak, M. Berglund, C. Laaser, P. Strosser, J. Roussard, B. Grandmougin, M. Kossida, I. Kyri-441
azopoulou, S. Kolberg, P. Montesinos Barrios, et al., EU water saving potential.442
20
Page 20 of 22AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
[48] M. D. Bartos, M. V. Chester, The conservation nexus: Valuing interdependent water and energy443
savings in Arizona, Environmental Science & Technology 48 (4) (2014) 2139–2149.444
[49] J. Jagermeyr, D. Gerten, J. Heinke, S. Schaphoff, M. Kummu, W. Lucht, Water savings potentials445
of irrigation systems: Global simulation of processes and linkages, Hydrology and Earth System446
Sciences 19 (7) (2015) 3073.447
[50] K. F. Davis, M. C. Rulli, A. Seveso, P. DOdorico, Increased food production and reduced water use448
through optimized crop distribution, Nature Geoscience 10 (12) (2017) 919.449
[51] P. J. Ward, K. M. Strzepek, W. P. Pauw, L. M. Brander, G. A. Hughes, J. C. Aerts, Partial costs of450
global climate change adaptation for the supply of raw industrial and municipal water: a methodol-451
ogy and application, Environmental Research Letters 5 (4) (2010) 044011.452
[52] C. E. Raptis, S. Pfister, Global freshwater thermal emissions from steam-electric power plants with453
once-through cooling systems, Energy 97 (2016) 46–57.454
[53] V. Dorjets, Many newer power plants have cooling systems that reuse water, Tech. rep., US Energy455
Information Administration (2014).456
[54] Y. Qin, E. Curmi, G. M. Kopec, J. M. Allwood, K. S. Richards, China’s energy-water nexus: As-457
sessment of the energy sector’s compliance with the 3 Red Lines industrial water policy, Energy458
Policy 82 (2015) 131–143.459
[55] D. L. McCollum, W. Zhou, C. Bertram, H.-S. de Boer, V. Bosetti, S. Busch, J. Despres, L. Drouet,460
J. Emmerling, M. Fay, et al., Energy investment needs for fulfilling the Paris Agreement and achiev-461
ing the Sustainable Development Goals, Nature Energy (2018) 1.462
[56] R. Kernan, X. Liu, S. McLoone, B. Fox, Demand side management of an urban water supply using463
wholesale electricity price, Applied Energy 189 (2017) 395–402.464
[57] A. Santhosh, A. M. Farid, K. Youcef-Toumi, Real-time economic dispatch for the supply side of the465
energy-water nexus, Applied Energy 122 (2014) 42–52.466
[58] P. L. McCarty, J. Bae, J. Kim, Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy producer: Can this be467
achieved?, Environmental Science & Technology 45 (17) (2011) 7100–7106.468
21
Page 21 of 22 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
[59] M. T. Van Vliet, D. Wiberg, S. Leduc, K. Riahi, Power-generation system vulnerability and adapta-469
tion to changes in climate and water resources, Nature Climate Change 6 (4) (2016) 375.470
[60] S. W. Turner, M. Hejazi, S. H. Kim, L. Clarke, J. Edmonds, Climate impacts on hydropower and471
consequences for global electricity supply investment needs, Energy 141 (2017) 2081–2090.472
[61] A. Ramaswami, K. Tong, A. Fang, R. M. Lal, A. S. Nagpure, Y. Li, H. Yu, D. Jiang, A. G. Russell,473
L. Shi, et al., Urban cross-sector actions for carbon mitigation with local health co-benefits in China,474
Nature Climate Change.475
22
Page 22 of 22AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-105767.R2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960